This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Christie: Buffett Should ‘Write a Check and Shut Up’

Are we defining the revocation of exemptions as a backdoor tax increase?

I don't see why not. My comment stems from the relationship between savings rates among different income demographics, and how that impacts growth given different effective rate differentials.

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

Re: Christie: Buffett Should ‘Write a Check and Shut Up’

Originally Posted by Your Star

What a horridly simplified critique of Buffets view.

"If you wanna protect the environment, go recycle that Coke can. Let the rest of us litter in peace!!"

Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.

Re: Christie: Buffett Should ‘Write a Check and Shut Up’

The most efficient way to raise revenue is to raise people's incomes and reduce unemployment. More people with jobs = more taxpayers.

Such a concept is exogenous of the available policy tools that government has at its disposal. If there were a "magic jobs button" i guarantee you that it would have been pressed (repeatedly) by now.

Didn't even break a sweat on that one.

Because it did not address my statement.

I'll even give you a concrete example of something we can do. If we were to open up drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska, and do away with silly regulations on hydrofracking in the Marcellus Shale, we would create hundreds of thousands of high paying jobs, infuse trillions of dollars of wealth in to the economy, lower business costs across the board, and have more revenue than we know what to do with... all without having to increase taxes one penny.

The notion that regulation is killing employment opportunities has already been snuffed out. It is obvious to anyone with an objective pair of eyes that our employment shortfall is due to a lack of aggregate demand (which negatively impacts short to medium term investment). If you want to actually address my statement, then by all means go for it. But attempting to interject the notion that pent up supply is a drag on employment (via over-regulation) is nonsense.

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

Re: Christie: Buffett Should ‘Write a Check and Shut Up’

Such a concept is exogenous of the available policy tools that government has at its disposal. If there were a "magic jobs button" i guarantee you that it would have been pressed (repeatedly) by now.

Because it did not address my statement.

The notion that regulation is killing employment opportunities has already been snuffed out. It is obvious to anyone with an objective pair of eyes that our employment shortfall is due to a lack of aggregate demand (which negatively impacts short to medium term investment). If you want to actually address my statement, then by all means go for it. But attempting to interject the notion that pent up supply is a drag on employment (via over-regulation) is nonsense.

Hmm, are you going to argue that the price on products is not driven up by regulatory burden?
Because last time I checked, when you drive price up, demand goes down if everything else stays the same.
Maybe we have a lack of agregate demand because we have higher prices driven by regulatory and tax burdens built into products. Which could also be argued to be driving down wages because of the amount of cost going out per employee, not just their wages, but the tax burden, SS burden, rising disability insurance, mandated health insurance costs...

Im going to argue that the increased tax and regulatory burden (including Obama care) is depressing wages, depressing profits and inhibiting hiring, investment and this is pushing towards less available consumer demand. Hence, oversupply.